16:0040(10)NG - AFGE Local 32 and OPM -- 1984 FLRAdec NG

[ v16 p40 ] 16:0040(10)NG
The decision of the Authority follows:

16 FLRA No. 10
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 32
Union
and
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Agency
Case No. O-NG-903
DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUES
This petition for review comes before the Authority pursuant to
section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute) and raises questions relating to the negotiability
of two Union proposals. Upon careful consideration of the entire
record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the
following determinations.
Union Proposal 1
No lie detectors will be used.
Union Proposal 1 is to the same effect as Union Proposal 4 found to
be outside the duty to bargain in American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1858 and Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, 10 FLRA 440 (1982). In that
decision, the Authority held that a proposal which prohibited the use of
the polygraph violated management's right to determine its internal
security practices under section 7106(a)(1) of the Statute. The
Authority determined that the proposal prevented management from
utilizing investigative techniques which it had adopted to safeguard
Agency personnel and property.
According to the Agency's uncontested contention, Union Proposal 1,
herein, likewise prevents management from utilizing an investigative
technique which it has adopted to safeguard personnel and property.
Hence, based on U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal and the
reasons and case cited therein, Union Proposal 1 is outside the duty to
bargain.
Union Proposal 2
Entries in an individual development plan do constitute a
commitment by the agency to promote or train.
The individual development plan referred to in the proposal consists
of a form in which employees and supervisors outline the employee's
training and developmental needs. The items to be completed by the
supervisor include training needs in the employee's present position,
developmental activities needed for career ladder advancement and
developmental activities needed for movement to a new position. The
supervisor also completes a more detailed plan for the achievement of
each of these objectives, for example, a description of the exact type
of training needed. The Agency asserts, without controversion, that
this proposal would require it to provide the exact type of training
specified in the individual development plan. In National Association
of Air Traffic Specialists and Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, 6 FLRA 588 (1981) (Union Proposals I through
III) the Authority held that a proposal which prescribed "the type of
training to be assigned as well as its frequency and duration"
interfered with the Agency's right to assign work pursuant to section
7106(a)(2)(B). Since the instant proposal would in effect specify the
type of training to be provided for each employee, it similarly
interferes with the Agency's right to assign work and is outside the
duty to bargain. /1/
Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and
it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., September 20, 1984
Henry B. Frazier III, Acting
Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
/1/ Based upon the Authority's conclusion that Union Proposal 2 is
outside the duty to bargain pursuant to section 7106(a)(2)(B), it is
unnecessary to consider the other Agency contentions concerning the
negotiability of the proposal.